Most New Testament scholars agree that a considerable amount of material in the Gospels is plausible and at least possible. Whether we argue for the maximum of possible information or the minimum of indisputable information depends on our objective (e.g., debunking unwarranted skepticism or populist naivety). Most historians, however, are interested not only in what is absolutely certain or in what is potentially plausible but in what is most probable. And it is here that our consensus breaks down, again partly because scholars differ in how we estimate the reliability of our primary sources—the Gospels.
Noting contradictions in matters of detail, some scholars approach the gospel narratives’ substance with a priori suspicion. (Scholarship associated with the Jesus Seminar, for example, often exemplifies this tendency, although rarely with the absolute suspicion of the populist “Jesus mythers.”) Conversely, some conservative scholars start with a default acceptance of the narratives’ accuracy even down to most details of chronology. Probably the majority of Gospels scholars today fall in the range between these positions, leaving the burden of proof with whoever makes an argument for a particular event or saying.
In the range of Jesus scholarship today, scholars such as Sanders, Gerd Theissen, John Meier and Mark Allan Powell represent a fairly centrist position, despite differences among themselves. Scholars such as John Dominic Crossan or, to a lesser extent, Marcus Borg (sadly, now deceased) would be to the left of this center; scholars such as myself or N. T. Wright would be to the right (no pun intended) of this center (though not, for example, assuming the narratives’ chronology). We are all on the same map, but methodological differences and different assumptions about how to weigh the ancient evidence lead to different conclusions.
The dearth of surviving evidence means that filling the gaps requires some guesswork, so presuppositions cannot but affect where on this continuum particular interpretations fall.[1] Scholars often attempts to circumvent the limits of available information with speculative reconstructions.[2] Speculation should not be confused with information, though because educated guesses are correct more frequently than are uneducated ones, they may help insofar as we recognize varying degrees of probability.[3] Broader knowledge of the tradents’ and Evangelists’ environment may plug some gaps in our knowledge.
This content is by Craig Keener, but edited and posted by Defenders Media.
For more on the reliability of the Gospels and historical-Jesus research, read Christobiography (2019).
[1] Eve, Behind Gospels, 177–78, 184–85. Downing, “Researches.” For such inferences in oral tradition, see Rubin, Memory, 36.
[2] Vansina, Oral Tradition, 173, correctly chastises this habit.
[3] Cf. comments in Keener, review of Malina.
